That was a good interview, so many nuances. I side with Silverman on this subject of course but I liked the back and forth. Silverman starts off very nervous, he is talking too much, O’Reilly senses this and takes advantage, then O’Reilly makes that bone headed remark of the tides. This is the opportunity Silverman needs to get back on top, that gives him the confidence to slow down a bit, from there it was an even match. They each made good points and bad points, and in every case were able to catch their opponent in the act and produce a good counterpoint. I think this is a rare case where neither man would say he wishes he would have said something else at the end of the debate, with the exception of the tides thing.

I also think you guys are way underestimating O’Reilly, he is a little too much of a populist for my tastes but I think he is one of the few really genuine people on the cable networks, I think he is who he is, same with Maddow, you may not agree with them but I think you have to respect their intelligence and their honesty.

What I meant is they are honest about who they are, they don’t come across as caring for the little guy when they don’t, that type of thing. I think Maddow is truely who she is, I don’t think some of the others are.

Jared Loughner, the shooter, who has been described by some who knew him as a “left wing pothead,” was also pro-abortion and kept a satanic alter with a skull and candles in a tent in his backyard. I know where you plan to take this, Inky, but if you do, you’ll be blaming the wrong wing, nut job.

People think of the political continuum to be a flat bell curve, it is really more in the shape of a tiara with the front of the crown that bell curve shape that represents the great majority of the population. The extreme fringes of either the left or right don’t end at either end of a flat piece of paper, they end around the back, where they merge into one another. This is the home of the anarchist. Just as those in the center on the front of the tiara hold many right and left views, so do those in the back. The biggest difference is those in the front are in the light where the air is clear, those in the back have sniffed way too much hair spray. This seems to be the where the political views of this gunman reside.

So in other words, NL, Jared Loughner was described by his friends in terms that could describe pretty much any of us as posters on this blog, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative at some point within the last ten years?

It’s interesting watching the right-wing squirm over this though. Maybe next time there’s a terrorist attack, or even a failed one, they’ll hold off on blaming the other party for a few days before using the tragedy to scrore political points.

Maybe my point is this, for the time being: Jared Loughner is 22 years old, and almost definitely schizophrenic. Analysis of his youtube videos indicates that, if there is a political motive to his actions, it involves very little that anyone outside of Jared Loughner would recognize as a coherent platform. However, the media (CBS, Dailykos,) has already begun what is sure to become a widespread march towards contextualizing his shooting of a judge and Senator as a political act and assigning political blame. Much of the attention / blame / outrage that has thus far emerged from the shooting has been directed towards Sara Palin and the “right wing.” This is absurd for two reasons:

1. There is nothing that connects any of Loughner’s stated or construed views that connects him to the right wing. He’s an outspoken atheist and opponent of religion, he was open about his use of marijuana and is on record as supporting abortion rights. Does anyone not to the left of Noam Chomsky and / or the MC5 find anything remotely “right wing” about any of those views?

2. If political rhetoric has enflamed Loughner’s insanity and provoked him to violence, who can accurately say at this point whose rhetoric it was? Since Loughner was 11 years old, he has been told the government is not to be trusted and that liberty is dead. He has been told that George Bush stole an election, that Barack Obama stole an election, that the US government destroyed the World Trade Center to start a war for oil, that Barrack Obama is a islamic terrorist, that George Bush is a Nazi, that Barrack Obama allowed the Gulf coast to be decimated by an oil slick so oil companies could make more money, that George Bush ordered the levies in New Orleans destroyed by helicopters because he hated black people, that George Bush had Paul Wellstone killed and on and on. To a mentally ill young person who already thinks his mind is being controlled by some sinister outside force, any and all of this can add up to a compelling argument to lash out against the government is some horrible fashion. Sara Palin’s only been in National politics since 2008, and the Tea Party’s only been going for a year or so. How is it that their rhetoric is that much more inflammatory and effective than everyone else’s? Not that the right wing has not been, in some sector’s shrill and weird, but hasn’t the left wing been shrill and weird as well in recent years?

Personally, I think blaming Sarah Palin because some atheist hippy shot somebody is, in and of itself shrill and weird. In fact, blaming anyone aside from Loughner shows a sincere misunderstanding of the apparent situation, and a profound inability to comprehend the real world outside of certain agenda presets and conditioned responses.

I agree with most of what you say. I guess it’s his anti-immigration views, his belief that the U.S. government is illegitimate and the fact the he shot Democrats as the reasons some on the left are pointing fingers.

I don’t think you can’t preach a steady stream of hate and violence and when something likes this happens expect not to get some fingers pointed at you. In my opinion, if you put a crosshair on a congressperson and tell people to reload and that congressperson gets shot, you at least deserve to get a few fingers pointed at you.

No. As you should know from reading JBC’s posts, since he links to it quite a bit, the Daily Kos is a liberal blog that published an article in the days before the shooting saying, ” Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi as our minority leader. … Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is DEAD to me now.” The site also posted a “target list” identifying Giffords as one of dozens of representatives with “a bull’s-eye on their district” for being a “bad apple” Democrat.

Ahh I see what you’re getting at now. And now I remember that it’s a liberal blog… haven’t heard the name in a while.

I think that quote from Obama is not appropriate political discourse, either. If somebody showed up later to a McCain rally and opened fire I would’ve expected people to scrutinize that statement from Obama.

I don’t understand why it’s necessary to use this type of rhetoric when talking about political opponents. You may not agree with them but they’re still your friends, coworkers, neighbours… I mean, jeeez!

if he uses very specific right wing extremist language, he might be a wwnj

if he is alienated and a high school drop out, he might be a wwnj

if he rants on about the gold standard, he might be a wwnj

if he raves about the evil government and mind control, he might be a wwnj

if he rails against the evil public schools, he might be a wwnj

if he is angry and has disturbing outbursts, he might be a wwnj

if he is a skinhead and makes incoherent youtube vids, he might be a wwnj

if he owns a gun and uses it to make a political statement, he might be a wwnj

something of a pattern emerging, can’t quite make it out…

oh wait, someone said he smoked pot when he was younger and had long hair!
and someone else twittered he was a lib!
case closed
the dirty f.ing hippies did it

Sadly, nothing will change: the wwnjs will still twist themselves in knots to blame anyone but themselves and their ‘kill em all!’ rhetoric. Eventually it’ll all be back to reflexive hippy punching and business as usual. Long-winded bromides and anecdotes about how dum us libs is. har har har!

So… an archery target is the same as sniper scope crosshairs?
No. just… no.
Up is not down.
Black is not white.

Giffords GOPr opponent had a M16 shoot in where they had human targets
(iirc someone shot up her pic as well, might have been another Rep tho…)

If you don’t hear the crazy in “don’t retreat. RELOAD!” (note those are Palin’s caps btw) if you can’t see that the right wing’s angry focus on violent rhetoric and deeds are poisoning the public square, then your sanity filter is on backwards or missing entirely.

Funny how the wwnjs are in a absolute tizzy trying to paint this guy as some damn hippy

First Point: From Anton Lavey’s Myspace Page: “LaVey Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and “eye for an eye” morality. Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists.” Anyone who knows anything about Satanism already knew this.

Second: What right “specific right wing rhetoric” has this guy used? “Mind Control?” so far, that’s the only thing I’ve read that he has said, other than he finds abortion amusing, is that he’s worried about “mind control.” Call me crazy, but I thought both sides of the political spectrum in this country were pretty much on the same page regarding “mind control.” I thought dislike for “mind control” was kind of a bi-partisan thing, and I’ll lay you money that Rush Limbaugh’s views regarding mind control are pretty similar to Barack Obama’s. NL says the shooter has right wing views on immigration – where did he read that? Have you read that? Have you read anything?

I don’t think anybody could be in as big a tizzy to prove this guy is anything as much as you are trying to connect him to whatever your stereotype of a “right-winger” is. This guy has made no public statement whatsoever, and very little anecdotal testimony regarding him paints any coherent political picture at all, yet you’ve already assigned him the political identity you need him to have to keep your own little universe in order.

Yes, if he raves about the evil government and mind control, he might be a wwnj, or he might just be Knarlyknight.

If he is angry and has disturbing outbursts, he might be a wwnj, or it could just be Enkidu.

If he owns a gun and uses it to make a political statement, he might be a wwnj. If he makes a bomb and uses it to make a political statement, he might be Bill Ayers.

If he bites your finger off at a Town Hall meeting, he might be a left wing nut job or…no, he’s just a left wing nutjob.

…and what in the world is the difference between an archery target and gun target? You can’t kill somebody with an arrow? I don’t know if your sanity filter is on backwards, but sometimes I think your head is on sideways.

Not to pick on you Inky, but…well,..yes, to pick on you – it’s just that, as long as I’ve known you you’ve been petrified of this coming tide of right wing anger and violence that has never materialized, no matter how many times you’ve desperately latched on to any news event you can to prove that it’s finally here when it never is. There was that census worker in Kentucky who committed suicide and you were just certain he hadn’t killed himself and that he’d been murdered by some right-wing cabal, but then FBI ruled the death a suicide and you were wrong, so you latched on to this tea party thing and how all these Palin rallies were these seething bowls of hatred, violence and terror that were about to spill over into the streets and how some right winger was going to kill a bunch of people at a town hall meeting, but the only guy who got hurt at any of these healthcare debates was an elderly man who had his finger bitten off by a liberal. Now some obviously schizophrenic individual kills a bunch of people because he thought his mind was being controlled – by what? The Government? The Devil? Jell-O? – and you’re at it again. I’ll admit, the fact that this incident occurred at a political function muddies the issue a bit and buys you at least a few days worth of cover, but even you must ask yourself the question – is violent insanity, in and of itself, a political act just because politicians became its target? On the day of these shootings, how many other mentally ill individuals hurt and / or killed other people for the same insane, confused reasons as this man probably hurt and killed these people in Arizona, and are this guy’s actions any more of a political act than theirs, or is the difference a matter of venue? I’m asking this question on the basis of the facts on the ground – not your personal biases, which are irrelevant or on the basis of your “gut feelings” which your track record suggests to be wrong. All we can say with any certainty is that this young man is mentally ill and that he has killed people. The only conclusions that can be drawn can only be drawn from these facts and nothing else, until new information arises. I was right about the suicide in Kentucky, I was right about the Health Care rallies, and I’ll be right about this as well.

NL – last I checked, and I’ve been checking since the day the shooter’s name was announced and his Myspace account was discussed on the national news, his MySpace page was offline. You must have one hell of a browser.

…and isn’t a bullseye generally associated with shooting at something? Otherwise, why would there be one on an archery target, a sniper rifle target, a circus game, you know…THINGS PEOPLE SHOOT AT.

Well apparently when progressives see a bullseye on something they don’t take it as a literal meaning to load up a gun and go shoot someone because they lost a vote on a piece of legislation, a “second amendment remedy”, if you will.

Perhaps until their followers can demonstrate that they understand these words and graphics aren’t supposed to have literal meaning the Right should tone down their rhetoric.

Oh, if you take a couple seconds to research something on the Google you can find almost anything. Google works through any browser, you don’t have to have special one.

—-
It’s unclear whether Loughner maintains a direct connection to the group, however, “strong suspicion is being directed” at American Renaissance in the wake of the group being referenced in Loughner’s Myspace and YouTube videos, according to the memo, which was obtained by Fox News.
—-

All due respect, but I think everybody knows what a bullseye means, no matter what their politics, or how willing they are to feign ignorance of basic iconography for the sake of argument. This is barely worth discussing.

And you need to quit watching Fox news, too:

“For the last 24 hours, the Web has been alive with speculation that the Arizona shooter has some sort of ties to a right-wing group called American Renaissance. The primary source for this claim is a Fox News report from yesterday saying that law enforcement had made this determination based on information provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

But a DHS official tells me that the department has not established any such possibility, undercutting what appears to be the primary basis for this claim.

Fox News’s report yesterday initially claimed that a DHS memo had outlined the possible connection, and defined American Renaissance as a “pro-white racist organization” that Jared Loughner “mentioned in some of his internet postings.” Fox later walked back the report a bit, sourcing the claim to “a law enforcement memo based on information provided by DHS.

“We have not established any such possible link,” (an) official says.”

-Greg Sargent, Washington Post January 10, 2011

I’d provide a link, but if you take a couple seconds to research something on the Google you can find almost anything.

…and even if a connection could be established, what would you have: a pot smoking, atheist, pro-abortionist who hates Mexicans and is afraid of mind control? That’s a coherent political platform where, exactly? That’s taking 5 positions at the same time, at least three of which are liberal – oh I’m sorry, progressive -, one is conservative and the other is insane. You’d have to work overtime to make any of it add up to anything, either way.

Hey, you asked me where I read that he mentioned American Renaissance, an anti-immigration org, on his MySpace page (implying that I was making shit up) and I showed you where it was. That’s all. What you posted above doesn’t say that he didn’t write and talk about these things on MySpace and YouTube – only that he he wasn’t officialy a member. And…?

I’m not talking about his positions on anything. Besides, you left out a whole bunch, such as his more right-wing views. But I’m sure that was just a coincidence, right?

I’m talking about a rifle target being placed on somebody with instructions to reload and that person being shot, many killed and many wounded.

“I’m talking about a rifle target being placed on somebody with instructions to reload and that person being shot, many killed and many wounded.”

Do you honestly think Sarah Palin wanted this woman to be shot? Is that what you’re honestly trying to say? I don’t mean rhetorically – I mean honestly and literally – do you actually believe Sarah Palin was trying to instruct someone to actually take a gun and kill someone?

But these so-called leaders need to understand that some of their followers are deranged and when they rile people up with propaganda and paranoia there are going to consequences. A lot of us could feel this coming for a while now. Remember in the summer when windows were being smashed in? What did Sharon Angle mean by “second amendment remedies”? The kettle has been boiling…. All these little subtleties go inside the brain of a whacko, build up and shit like this happens.

With great power comes great responsibility. Or so it should.

Schtick? What schtick is that? That violent rhetoric by leaders will lead to violence carried out by their followers?

If Palin was not calling for violence, what was she trying to “rile up?” What does she really want her “followers” to do? Why is “Reload” more sinister than “If they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun?” Is it the nature of the leadership in each case, or the nature of the following?

They’re so drunk with power and they get off on it (riling people up). I honestly believe that. But now the chickens have come home to roost and I hope they realize that the things they say and write can have serious consequences among their more, um, unstable followers.

“Is it the nature of the leadership in each case, or the nature of the following?”

Both. I don’t think people like Beck, Palin and Limbaugh realize sometimes how devoted and gullible their followers are. When they say something, it’s like gospel to some people. You don’t think so?

Yes, I’m saying there are more right-wing lunatics then there are left wing. And followers of Beck, Palin and Limbaugh have been fed so much paranoia that if they (Beck, Palin and Limbaugh) imply to those followers to carry out certain acts they – even just one whacko – are much more likely carry them out then say, a follower of Michael Moore.

Yes. I strongly believe that.

You don’t think violent rhetoric by leaders leads to violence carried out by their followers?

There are 47 million registered Republicans in the United States. If any significant number of these people were as gullible or as easily led towards violence as you’re suggesting, why haven’t we had a revolution yet, or even a good-sized riot? Sharon Angle was featured in every national media outlet and most overseas, blatantly advocating violence against Harry Reed, as she clearly did – why did not even one person take her up on it? Why was the only bloodshed at any of the Town Hall meetings perpetrated by a liberal with sharp teeth? If there are that many obviously deranged and violent right wingers in America today, why has the whole argument over the threat they pose come down to the actions of one confused young man who has no coherent politics of any sort?

Perhaps the revolution hasn’t started yet because they’re still searching for a corporate partner to help them organize it. They were pretty close with those town halls last summer. Just throw out some propaganda about death panels and government take over to get the people riled up.

What I was looking for was paranoia, which I think colors your world view in general, and which is what I got via your “impending revolution” rant. “These people are so paranoid…and they’re all out to get me!”

I remember violence at the Town Halls – and who was it that got hurt? Some old man who had his finger bitten off by a LIBERAL. Who else? What other violence was there at the town hall meetings? We’re not talking about talking loud and sinister “vibes” and “I got my feelings hurt,” I mean real violence. What was the body count at any one of these Town Halls – you make them sound like a bloody massacre.

Remember that Tea Party rally that spilled out into a riot into the streets of Philadelphia? Three policemen were hospitalized and a protestor was killed when – just kidding! Nothing like that ever happened, did it?

You must have missed all the pushing, shoving and yelling at the town halls. Windows smashed all over the country. Hop on YouTube for a refresher.

Like I said, the kettle was boiling for a while. All based on lies fed to the followers of right-wing leaders. People getting all riled up over shit that wasn’t even true, yet they strongly believe it was true because beck and Palin told them so. Just because nobody was killed at the town halls doesn’t make it okay to incident violence and hatred by spreading bullshit, in my view anyways. Look what it lead to.

And re: the revolution… Are you the only one around here that’s allowed to be sarcastic and condescending?

a LIBERAL?!?!
really? pinky biter? a dang lib? who knows? but he did go up to a group of anti-HCR folks and rudely say ‘f u!’ for which the pinky bite-ee assaulted him. Good thing Mr Bite-er didn’t have a gun, because if if Mr Bite-ee assaults Mr Bite-er and tries to gouge his eyes out, that person has a legitimate right to self-defense up to and including deadly force if necessary. At least that is my understanding of the law (might vary from state to state). wwnj is lucky he only lost the tip of his pinky finger after assaulting someone. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Start a fight and you may get hurt. Lesson: don’t start fights.

Maybe Mr Bite-ee will think twice before sucker punching any more rude people.

Maybe there are more right wing lunatics than Left-wing (I doubt it,) but the ones on the Left Wing certainly make up the difference, don’t they? I sure hope nobody ever says “f u” to Enky. All of us will be on Fox News as a “hate group” for inciting him on this blog.

No, NL – I’m certainly the not the only one who’s allowed to be sarcastic or condescending, but I’m usually the only one who is.

“Just because nobody was killed at the town halls…” not just that, nobody even got hurt at one of the town halls. Hatred? Against what, windows? Breaking windows isn’t violence, it’s vandalism. How many windows were broken “across the country?” Was it more than get broken when somebody wins the Super Bowl? And what was the specific rhetoric that inspired all this “violence” against windows – anti-health care rhetoric? During the sixties, the left-wing Weather Underground punctuated an anti-Viet Nam War rally by smashing all the car and shop windows for an entire city block in Chicago. Was anti-War rhetoric responsible for this? Was it even real violence – especially in light of some of the things the same people would be involved in in the years to come?

Pinky bite-ee lost the tip of his pinky after he sucker punched a rude person and tried to claw his eyes out. Self defense. Don’t start hitting someone if you can’t take the consequences. again: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Start a fight and you may get hurt. Lesson: don’t start fights.

How does the violence and mayhem perpetrated by violent Tea Party members stack up against the violence and mayhem perpetrated by “Progressives” during the 2008 GOP Convention in Minnesota when Bush was still in office? Some guy actually threw a 50 lb sandbags off the I-94 overpass at a bus carrying delegates:

“The man accused of dropping a 50-pound sandbag onto Interstate 94 during the Republican National Convention pleaded guilty Monday. He pleaded guilty to a second-degree assault charge, which is a felony, for dropping the sandbag from the Fifth Street overpass.

“David Terence Mahoney, 24, originally faced five counts of assault and five counts of terroristic threats for dropping the sandbag onto the route delegates were traveling.”

It’s also okay to break alot windows, as long as you do so “progressively:”

“MINNEAPOLIS — Police arrested protesters near the St. Paul convention site this afternoon and blocked off pedestrian and car traffic into the city center for at least an hour.

“While the remains of a peaceful protest parade swirled around one closed road after another, growing increasingly frustrated that they weren’t able to get back to their houses and cars, one officer told me that “anarchists” a few blocks away had been causing trouble — throwing bricks and breaking people’s property.

“Another reporter confirmed there had been a violent demonstration comprised primarily of young, shirtless men with bandanas over their faces. The reporter had observed a neatly stacked pile of bricks and some broken glass…”

Gosh Inky, I think Mr. Bit-ee has you even more upset than the guy who bit his finger off probably was. Just think how upset you’d be if someone really got in your face and told you to fuck yourself and then, before you even had time to react YOUR FINGER HAD BEEN BITTEN OFF BY A LIBERAL!

Don’t try to change the nature of our debate here – this is not about truth or falsehood: it’s about violence. Whether I acknowledge the the truth or falseness of the rhetoric is beside the point and not in any way relevant to the conversation. The issue is whether or not the rhetoric was explicitly violent and whether or not it inspired actual violence to the extent you’re claiming it did. The issue between us is not whether or not the Tea Party presented an accurate depiction of the healthcare debate – and I’ll certainly concede their take on it was at least as bogus, disingenuous and false as the crap the Obama camp was trying to sell at the same time – but whether or not that depiction was designed to inspire a wave of violence you insist has occurred, but can’t show any great evidence of. The additional point on the table is whether or not the right wing is more prone to violence when incited by rhetoric, which I hold to be patently false, as exhibited by the behavior of Leftist protestors at the 2008 GOP convention, the Big 8 Conference, the “Siege of Seattle,” and numerous other instances where crowds of leftists have fought with the police, destroyed private property, endangered lives, and broken more glass than either side has broken in the recent healthcare debate. These are the topics, please keep track of them.

Amy Bishop was an un-tenured college professor at the University of Huntsville in Alabama. She was a registered Democrat, politically active – she belonged to the Clergy Letters Project, an evolutionist group – and was described as a “socialist” by some of her students, She was also a big fan of Barrack Obama – co-workers told the Boston Globe she was “obsessed with Obama to the point of being off-putting.”

On June 13. 2008, Barack Obama told a crowd of supporters in Philadelphia, “If they (the McCain campaign) bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun…because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.”

In February 2010, a disgruntled Amy Bishop brought her gun to her tenure hearing and shot six people, killing three of them.

Amy Bishop had a history of violence. At age twenty-one, she had shot and killed her own teenage brother. Before the shootings, she had been a suspect in a pipebomb attack, perhaps inspired by fellow leftist William Ayers or environmentalist Unibomber Ted Kaczynski. She had also been charged in an assault case where she had punched a woman in an IHOP for taking the last booster seat.

Points for Discussion:

1. Is Amy Bishop’s politics relevant in this case? If so why? If not why?

2. Are Barack Obama’s “Gun to a Knife Fight” comments relevant to this case. If not why, if so, why?

3. Amy Bishop is certainly not the first left-wing thinker to become involved in a violent act or murder (17034 murders in the US in 2009 with over 60% of the population registered as Democrat – they couldn’t all be right-wingers, folks.) Is she part of some larger trend due to her political affiliations, or is it even fair to suggest that she is? Her connection to the pipe bomb attack raises eerie spectres of the darker side of sixties left-wing radicalism. Is it fair to even bring this up?

4. How is the Amy Bishop case different from the Loughner case? Both are mentally ill people, both shot six people in public venues and both may have been loyalists to political leaders prone to violent imagery in their rhetoric. Are they different at all?

Wow, you could save yourself a whole lot of time and effort by not assuming that I condone violence by either side.

Seriosuly, the issue we’re discussing here is about the heated, over the top rhetoric over the past while and the 19 people getting shot, killed or wounded on Saturday.

You can try to spin it all you want by bringing up stuff I surely would condone — and in some case already have — when happening but it doesn’t change the fact that right-wing leaders literally put people in their crosshairs, asked people to reload and incited hate and extreme paranoia among their followers. And now people are being shot at political events and bringing machine guns to presidential events. I’m sorry but that’s just fucked up.

It worries me to see America like this. I believe much of the world needs a strong and united America to survive and to help lead on our many great shared challenges.

With all due respect, you don’t seem to understand much I’ve tried to say here, there are issues afoot that are way beyond you and now you’re looking for a safe place to retreat. Be it beyond me to deny you that. Good evening.

Can I toss something out here? One of the dynamics I see here is the weatherman syndrome. If the weatherman comes on every night in the winter and predicts snow he will eventually be right. Just because leftys have been telling us that Limbaugh, Beck and Palin will bring about violence because of their rhetoric and someone finally snaps they automatically say “Ah ha! Told you so!” I think that is what LB is saying. So far I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe he even knows the existence of Palin, he may hate and distrust her as much as the woman he shot, given what we do know I would say that is better possibility than he patterned his actions after a graphic on an obscure website.

No, lb, when you start accusing me of supporting violence from the left you lost me. Seriously, wtf, have I ever said I support violence if it’s from the left? No. When you start veering off on a tangent about all kinds of other shit that has nothing to do with the story we’re talking about, my eyes start glazing over.

I think the heated, false and toxic rhetoric of late has lead to extreme violence and now even death.

You don’t. Or, you’re in some weird way trying to justify it by referencing past events by people from the “other side”.

Which is fine, we can disagree, politely.

If you need to feed your ego by saying that I’m retreating, that’s cool. Feel free to tell all your friends that you made some dude on Internet blog retreat, I don’t mind.